“We probably will have to settle things by voting rather than merely talking (…). Nevertheless, talking together does make an important contribution, in getting all the relevant alternatives and considerations onto the table. Even just the anticipation of having to defend our position to others can help push us to internalize their perspectives and reflect systematically on such information as we have, thus leading us to make better decisions from a democratic point of view.”

Islande: Constitutional Council

The Constitutional Council was a body of 25 appointed Icelandic citizens, which was charged with creating a constitutional draft between 6 April and 29 July 2011. Initially the constitution was meant to be revised by a nationally elected assembly, but following a controversial Supreme Court decision to void the assembly elections, the Icelandic parliament (Althingi) appointed the elects to form a council.

The parliament had called for a constitutional revision in response to the national economic meltdown, which had caused the country’s stock exchange, currency and banks to crash in October 2008. Taking its cue from nation-wide protests and non-confrontational efforts by civil organisations, the governing parties decided that the citizenship should be involved in creating a new constitution. The council was ordered to do this by drawing on the results of a consultative citizens’ forum, as well as by advertising “extensively for proposals from the public, interest groups or other parties.” The council attempted to meet this condition by making innovative use of the internet, subscribing to popular social media like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Flickr and arguably making Iceland the first country to use crowdsourcing as a means for constitutional revision. This may have produced some notable ideas, such as the public ownership of Iceland’s natural resources, an article on information rights, and an attempt to enshrine the Parliament’s role in the supervision of financial management.

Irlande: We the citizens

‘We the Citizens’ is an independent national initiative with a clear and simple idea. We want to explore whether our Republic could benefit by citizens coming together in new ways of public decision-making. We believe this could help to renew trust in politics at this time of social and economic crisis in Ireland. So what are we about? In May and June of 2011, 'We the Citizens' invited fellow citizens to come together to share views on how to make our country better. ‘We the Citizens’ asked the people of Ireland to participate in one of our seven citizens’ events around the country. The purpose of the events was to provide a space for people to engage with each other on the future of our country. The 'We the Citizens' team are currently compiling the results of the Assembly and the extensive national survey work that took place before and after the Assembly.

Australie: Australia's first Citizens' Parliament

Australia's first Citizens' Parliament (also referred to as Australian Citizens' Parliament and ACP) was a large-scale three-day deliberation that took place in Canberra between randomly-selected citizens of Australia in February 2009. Organized by the new Democracy Foundation, the citizens were asked to address the question of how the Australian government could be strengthened to better serve the people. Their results, 13 proposals, were presented to the Australian Parliament. This event was meticulously recorded and provides an important vault of resources for future research.

Canada: Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform was a body created by the government of British Columbia, Canada. The Assembly was charged with investigating and recommending changes to improve the electoral system of the province. The body was composed of 160 citizens selected ar random from throughout the province. These members met approximately every other weekend for one year to deliberate about alternative voting arrangements. In October 2004, the Assembly recommended replacing the province's existing First Past the Post (FPTP) system with a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system: this recommendation was put to the electorate-at-large in a referendum held concurrently with the 2005 provincial election. The referendum required approval by 60% of votes and simple majorities in 60% of the 79 districts in order to pass: final results indicate that the referendum failed with only 57.7% of votes in favor, although it did have majority support in 77 of the 79 electoral districts. Because this referendum was somewhat inconclusive, the government called another referendum on the same question, with the same approval thresholds that was held on May 12, 2009. In that referendum, the STV was defeated with 62 percent of voters opposing the change.

Meeting of Minds. European Citizens’ Deliberation on Brain Science

A two-year pilot project led by a European panel of 126 citizens. A partner consortium of technology assessment bodies, science museums, academic institutions and public foundations from nine European countries launched this initiative in 2004 with the support of the European Commission.

The initiative gives European citizens a unique opportunity to learn more about the impact of brain research on their daily lives and society as a whole, to discuss their questions and ideas with leading European researchers, experts and policy-makers, put them in touch with fellow citizens from other European countries and make a personal contribution to a report detailing what the people of Europe believe to be possible and desirable in the area of brain science and what they recommend policy-makers and researchers to be aware of for future developments in this field.

Through this approach, the Meeting of Minds initiative wishes to meet EU calls for greater public involvement in the debate on future research, technological decision-making and governance.

Professor Farrell is a specialist in the study of parties, elections, electoral systems and members of parliament. He is founding co-editor of Party Politics and a co-editor of the Oxford University Press series on 'Comparative Politics'. Prior to his move to Dublin, Professor Farrell was professor and head of Social Sciences at the University of Manchester.

Dr. Julien Talpin (France)

Julien Talpin is a research fellow in political science at Ceraps/University of Lille 2 (France). His research deals with deliberative democracy, political socialisation and the transformations of representative government. He has studied a variety of democratic innovations from citizen juries, neighbourhood councils and participatory budgeting. Using both ethnographic and socio-historical methods, he has mainly focused on the individual impact of participation and deliberation. He has recently published ‘When democratic innovations let the people decide: An evaluation of co-governance experiments’ (edited by B. Geissel, K. Newton) ; Democratic Innovations, (Routledge, 2011) ; and (with S. Wojcik), 'Deliberating environmental policy issues: Comparing the learning potential of online and face-to-face discussions on climate change', Policy and Internet, 2010, 2 (4).

Prof. Dr. Jean Tillie (Pays-Bas)

Jean Tillie studied Political Science and wrote his PhD dissertation on determinants and measurement of party preference and voting behaviour, at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Jean Tillie is Professor Electoral Policies by special appointment at the University of Amsterdam. He is also the programme leader of the AISSR programme group ‘Challenges to Democratic Representation’. Jean Tillie studies the quality of multicultural democracy. His research focuses on radicalism and extremism, extreme right voting behavior, anti-immigrant feelings and the political integration of immigrants. He is also coordinating the EURISLAM project (an international comparative study on the social-cultural integration of Muslims).

Ms. Ida Andersen (Danemark, Danish Board of Technology)

The Danish Board of Technology is an independent council supervised by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Development. The purpose of The Danish Board of Technology is to diffuse information on technology: IT, genetic engineering, energy, environmental issues, biotechnology, health and transportation. The Danish Board of Technology has developed numerous methods for the purpose of involving citizens, including the so-called Citizens’ Hearing and the Consensus Conference. By means of these methods, among others, the Danish Board of Technology seeks the counsel of common citizens with regard to societal issues, thus gaining knowledge of the public’s priorities, ideas and suggested solutions.

Dr Clodagh Harris is a lecturer in the Department of Government, University College Cork. Her research interests include; deliberative democracy, active democratic citizenship, political participation and the scholarship of teaching and learning in political science. She has published in leading international journals such as Representation, European Political Science, PS Political Science and Politics and the Journal of Political Science Education . In 2004 she was seconded to TASC an independent think tank in Dublin to manage its Democracy Commission project (funded by the JRCT) and edit its final report `Engaging citizens the case for democratic renewal in Ireland ' (2005). During her time with the Commission she organised its public consultations across the island of Ireland on issues of political participation particularly amongst the under 25s and those living in socially disadvantaged areas. Forum theatre and community art were used to engage with the target groups. Dr Harris is also one of the key authors of 'Power to the People: Assessing Democracy in Ireland' , New Island: Dublin (2007), the first comprehensive audit of the state of democracy in modern Ireland. Dr. Harris has also been commissioned by the National Forum on Europe and by the European Movement to facilitate the Irish strands of the European Citizens Consultations.

Richard J. Stillman II is a Professor of Public Administration at the School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver. He taught on the faculties of George Mason University and California State University-Bakersfield and is the author or editor of several books. Stillman is an elected fellow in the National Academy of Public Administration and his textbook, Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, 8th edition is used at over 400 universities and colleges. Professor Stillman is the Editor of Public Administration Review, The Premier Journal of Public Administration.

Ms. Le Clercq represents the ‘Citizens' Policy’ Unit at the European Commission’s Communication DG. The unit’s Europe for Citizens programme’s main priorities include encouraging citizens to become actively involved in the process of European integration, empowering them to develop a sense of European identity, and enhancing mutual understanding between Europeans. In more concrete terms, the programme’s priority areas are: promoting participation and democracy at the EU level; the future of the Union and its basic values; intercultural dialogue; employment, social cohesion and sustainable development; and boosting awareness of the societal impact of EU policies.